The Voice of Treason

“A Sparrow Belch in a Typhoon”

Writing by treason on Monday, 20 of February , 2006 at 9:25 am

That’s what Alan Simpson is calling last week’s birdshot episode. I’d mentioned on Friday that I’d seen Dick Cheney in town a few years ago - he had Alan Simpson with him. The two of them in the same room are a hoot. Simpson’s a hoot in any case; he’s someone I’ve always liked because he reminds me a little of Everett Dirksen. Just says whatever’s in his head, so there.

Sometimes, when Simpson is talking, you wonder if he’s lost his mind. This past week it was clear that he was one of the few who hadn’t. The flurry of insanity whipped up by the events in Texas made nearly everyone a little loony.

The press went batty. It was another opportunity to excoriate Cheney and they were quick to accuse him of everything short of child molestation. Let’s see…there were accusations of animal abuse, arrogance of power, criminal activity, drunkenness, adultery, secrecy, disdain for the press and our way of life, and murder. This was a cover up, he didn’t abide by the rules, and he owes the American people an apology. Why? Because they have a right to know.

The right to know. It took a few hours for the news to break - Cheney believed it was more important to see to his friend and his family and get all the facts before running with the story. Something the media might want to jot down (um, think coal miners). I’d just like to point out that it was a matter of hours that news was withheld. A series of political cartoons were first published in September and the media still hasn’t let Americans see them. It’s been months. Talk about arrogance of power. When are they going to apologize for keeping that information from us? After all, as the media says, we have a right to know.

And then there was the pouting over Cheney’s decision to interview with Brit Hume. Hume is the best: he asks smart questions and he listens to the answers. Something the media might want to jot down. I do like it when CNN and others insult FNC, because every time someone attacks FOX News it’s clear that he or she is attacking FNC viewers. And, frankly, that’s a big group to offend. Just keep it up.

It’s funny how this was the big story that overshadowed all others. Ironically, some of that worked in the administration’s favor. Haven’t heard much lately about “domestic spying,” have you? Hmmm…was this yet another instance of strategery?

The MSM made themselves look like monkeys (”Would this be much more serious if the man had died?”). David Gregory, who’s always first to demand apologies and admissions of mistakes from the White House, actually apologized himself this week. After running the radio special, “The VP Shooting: Hunting For Answers,” everyone at ABC should have done the same.

Then Peggy Noonan wrote a column suggesting Cheney be replaced. The media jumped all over it: Even Peggy Noonan says he should step aside! I’m not so sure. I don’t believe Noonan was advocating Cheney’s resignation - I think she was intentionally fanning the flames. She was close to the Bush-Quayle campaign of 1992 and is familiar with what happens to politics when disloyalty runs rampant. It had been suggested then that Bush dump Quayle and it didn’t happen. Would this Bush dump Cheney?

I would advise against it. George Bush is loyal as a Labrador, and Dick Cheney is probably the most qualified public servant in history. Unpopularity doesn’t ruffle George Bush. He likes Cheney and he put him there for a reason. The problem now is that even if Cheney wanted to leave he couldn’t. I can picture him telling the press that he’s decided to resign so he’ll have more time to go hunting (read “Now go f*ck yourselves.”), but that’s impossible. It will look like he’s being dumped and you just don’t dump someone of Cheney’s caliber. No pun intended.

I’ve talked about the fringe who feels Cheney isn’t conservative enough. He has that daughter and doesn’t he know that that Mary Matalin runs and tells everything to that Carville person? Again, that’s the fringe. The majority of us who voted for Bush liked him as governor but weren’t enthusiastic about voting for him until Cheney appeared on the ticket. I like Bush, but I voted - primarily - for Cheney.

So the Democrats don’t like him. He’s bad for the Republicans, bad for the administration, and bad for the country. When Charlie Rangel was asked if he thought Cheney should step aside, Rangel looked serious. A new vice president - a moderate one, he said — would be good for the Republicans and it would be good for America. But it would be bad for the Democrats.

What does this mean? The Dems were in a panic over Dan Quayle and did everything they could to destroy his reputation. If he was such an empty suit, why the campaign to annihilate him? He was a threat. A young, good looking Conservative. Same thing with Cheney. Why the campaign to smear him?

I know who I’d want to see in Cheney’s place, but that won’t happen. Peggy Noonan even said as much. The “right” person would never get past the Senate. So Cheney, unless there is a serious health issue or death, will stay and finish the job. And that’s a good thing. But, following Rangel’s logic, that’s bad news for Democrats. He said they’d like to see Cheney replaced in that it would be good for the Republicans and for America.

Um, since when did Democrats start worrying about what’s good for America?

Category: Uncategorized

• Add this post to
• Del.icio.us -
• Digg -
• Reddit

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.